 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.234.219.46
i'm a recent "convert" to mch sacd. i recall a few years ago reading a statement by john atkinson to the effect that mch was the future. i considered myself a hardcore 2-ch guy and it really pissed me off. well, here we are, listening to amazing dsd mch recordings. anyway, the problem, of course, is putting together a proper playback system. my budget mch sys actually sounds ok, but doesn't go loud ... i follow the five (or six, or seven) identical speakers on the same stands (working towards that ...), but the real headache is obviously amplification (let's not even talk about players here). anyway -- everything (except megabuck separates i suppose) is designed for home theater. those hideous bigass receivers do not produce the right quality of sound. plus, 70% of the circuitry doesn't even come onto play in sacd playback. any secret solutions to this? does anybody feed their five sacd channels into a b&k 5-channel amp w/ level controls, for example? would that work, or is a multichannel preamp required (getting pricey ...) for some reason? i have to face the fact i don't have thousands in the till for this, already have spent way too much on stereo rig. for the record, i don't even have a tv ... don't really want a huge ugly receiver either. thanks, artiepresent mch system: little onkyo digital 6.1 receiver, 5 mission speakers, rel strata, various cheapo sony and phillips sacd players. thinking about 5 epos els, 5 nsm 5s, arcam rcvr, etc.
Follow Ups:
I haven't read much about people using powered studio monitors for multichannel, but I think it would make for a great solution. There are some great sounding studio monitors that won't break the bank, and then you might be able to use the controls on the speakers, or within the player to control volume.There are even powered studio monitor center channel speakers.
Just a thought.
-Aaron.
I use ATC active monitors all round for my system - see inmate systems for details. It works very well indeed. Perhaps the one potential problem is the length of balanced interconnect that one has to buy - in my case 10 metres per speaker - 60 metres of IC! That's one of the reasons I use nothing fancy but instead a basic Belden cable. There is also the issue of power connectors for 6 channels, for me this is a simpler problem to solve.
Dave
I could be wrong, I'm not expert, but balanced interconnects are designed to reject noise and interference, and made for long runs in studios and at recording sessions, etc. Speaker cables would be much more susceptible to problems related to long runs than balanced interconnects. It's also worth considering that you're eliminating the speaker cable completely from the setup, which should be a good thing.-Aaron.
Agreed - and you are probably right - but you know how it is, there's always something that needs improvement :-)
Dave
four Ampex 620 plus two Vandersteen sub for front.
Happy listening.
I have a Denon 3803 AVR. I have been shopping now for quite some time in an effort to upgrade to a better AVR or for separates.To make a long story short, I understand exactly where you are coming from as I haven't made a move for better amplification yet.
I may end up going with the Marantz SR18. I can get a decent trade-in for the Denon AVR and I have read very positive things about that component. Separates are too expensive for me to pursue.
I have assembled my system for about 50% of what it would cost if purchased new by buying used on Audiogon. Yeah, there is additional risk buying over the internet and yeah I don't have the security of a waranty. But I have a system I otherwise could not afford.
Those "hideous bigass receivers" sound decent enough for home theatre but will fall short of a decent 2ch separates system. Lack of power is simply one of many reasons.I lived with a home theatre solution for many years, but finally plunked for separate power amps for each channel and high quality pre amps. In fact, I now have all front channels bi-amped. I'm now even considering adding yet another 20A power circuit as I'm starting to suspect I don't have enough juice to power all those power amps (the living room lights literally dim as I progressively turn the amps on!).
I'm still embarrassed by the amount of money I paid - it would have been enough to buy me an absolute killer 2ch system, but hey, we only live once (unless you believe in reincarnation - but you can't take your system to the next life). And the results are worth it for great m-ch sound.
Well, this is a subject right to my heart as I am also trying to set up a good, and affordable, multichannel rig. At present, I am using the Audio Refinement Pre 5 as my preamp, sounds very good and runs around $1k. This is feeding a pair of vintage amps that sound fantastic, I am now looking to get 3 more of these amps into my system to make up the eventual 5 channels I will be using. Meanwhile, the two-channel sounds better than ever...
If the Onkyo or any other receiver has preamp outputs and a direct 6channel analog input without digitization, you can add a decent power amp to it for more guts. I did that with a Denon AVR for a while but real separates do even better.Kal
just isn't that great.... IMO...Seems like all of the SACD players purposely make their Redbook section suck so that you hear a bigger difference with SACD. Once you get up into the SACD/Universal machines with excellent transports, - like the high dollar Esoteric, the Ayre, the APL, Audio Aero, and Meitner: you hear less of a difference between the SACD layer and the CD layer. It just goes to show how important the transport is in detail retrieval, natural, organic, musicality, and soundstaging ability. With the Meitner, my APL, Audio Aero, and Esoteric, - SACD sound becomes the after thought that it should be, given the lack of discs available.
What to do? Buy a nice $3K retail SACD machine used, and pick up a nice DAC like the Stello, Audio Note, or Benchmark...Putting a Stello DAC along with the Marantz SA11, improves the crappy redbook on that player enormously...
Of course, this is somewhat speculative and subjective on my part, but i believe it to be true, and IMO, the Esoteric, Meitner, Ayre, and APL show that there is a lot of potential with regular old redbook...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
x
Sordidman,An interesting and thought-provoking thread (well, sub-thread). I was an early SACD convert and early this year bought the Ayre C-5xe. I've never LEFT vinyl.
Charlie Hansen makes it clear that one should think of the C-5xe as an extremely good RBCD player that also has 'universal' capabilities. I couldn't agree more. I participated in a shoot-out of a number of moderate to very high priced units a while back. It seemed to me that there was little question that the quality gap between RBCD and SACD narrowed as the overall quality (as defined by the participants) rose. We even had a few casual single blind tests, in which the listeners did not know whether they were listening to Redbook or SACD. Almost without exception, they picked out the SACD as sounding better. Admittedly, these sorts of tests were heavy on the classical content, which others have said - and with which I agree - tend to display the greatest disparity in perceived sound quality between the two formats.
I have also conducted an interesting test for myself and a couple of audio buddies. I have several of the Living Stereos on SACD, on CD (mastered around 1990, I believe), and on vinyl. There is no doubt whatever that vinyl is the superior format in most - but not all - respects. Typically, bass extension and definition are better on SACD, but that's about it. However, the SACDs are close...in some cases, DAMN close. Given the relative unavailability of quality vinyl copies, the SACDs of these performances should be considered a true treasure. The CDs are another matter entirely. Harry Pearson notwithstanding, and keeping in mind that I own a very limited sample of duplicated CD/'other', I find these discs to range from decent to stop-the-pain-I'm-going-to-run-screaming-from-the-room.
The vast majority of my listening is to either classical or bluegrass, with hefty shots of jazz and a tiny sprinkling of rock thrown in for good measure. The two main genres tend to have higher concentrations of quality SACDs (much newer material, in the case of the bluegrass), so I am perhaps a bit blinkered when it comes to concerns about availability and could not agree with "SACD sound becomes the after thought that it should be, given the lack of discs available." Regardless, thanks for the interesting discussion.
It is rare, Mike, when I can agree completely with a post. But I can't disagree with anything you said. I bought the Ayre C-5xe player late last year. I have never had a moment of regret. Classical music is my preference, but I enjoy a broad range of musical types. I also never left vinyl. I have done my own format comparisons and listened to a lot of shootouts at the local meetings of the audio society.I have learned some things. First I think symphonic music, especially string sound, is the real test of any format. Second I think that surround sound obscures differences and that 2-channel audition is necessary to compare accuracy of formats. And third I think that vinyl still comes up very well in comparisons and that the best Living Stereo SACDs can be very close to the original analog sound.
The most interesting comparison of all is the original RCA stereo 2-track tape issues (called Stereo-Orthophonic) to the Living Stereo vinyl discs and SACDs. These tapes preceded the issue of stereo discs. I own many of these tapes. Some didn't receive a good transfer. Others did. Of those that did, I think that they still beat the SACD by a small margin in all areas except deep bass. The 2-track tapes excel in the areas that matter to audiophiles. That is, there is a natural presentation of the acoustic, deep and wide, a realistic, hi-rez rendition of strings, a sense of ease in high frequencies that allow the sound to float in the air and decay naturally, and a very fine gradation of dynamics, especially at the soft end. In short I think the sound is closer to what I hear in the concert hall, and that's the ultimate comparison.
There are so many differences in taste, in equipment choices, and in the quality of transfers to each format that coming to a consensus is almost impossible. In the end we each make our own choice.
The reason I ask is the Classic Records LP re-issues have more bass than the SACDs but I don't believe that is a difference in formats. No, I believe Michael Hobson or Bernie Grundman boosted the bass.Any thoughts?
Teresa
Teresa,I own a mixture of both. Some, but not all, of the Shaded Dogs are distinctly lacking in bass content. I would speculate that it was scaled back at the time to allow pickups of the age to track them. Having said that, a few of the Classics do seem to be a trifle overblown in the same region.
In a more modern vein, I have never quite understood why otherwise beautifully recorded music by what I consider to be the labels most sensitive to minimalist techniques (Reference Recordings, Chesky) insisted on spotlighting, for example, the bass drum. In live music, you NEVER hear that drum 'booming' the way that they do on, say, Chesky's LP of Pictures at an Exhibition ('Power of the Orchestra").
that all violins, be they a typical "string section" or solo, sound better warmer...I don't hate classical music. But, my experience is limited. And now matter how much I try, - I love jazz, I love world, I love brit-based-world-jazz-rock more.. I really love things like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" soundtracks, and the Mission soundtracks and Pictures at an exhibition, and the Firebird Suite, and a lot of Wagner, and a lot of Tchiakovsky, (sorry for the spelling). Now, I have this Blue Circle BC204, (Since I'm a BC dealer, I'll try not to advertize and gush), - but this is the most romantic and lush and dynamic system that I've ever had, and pretty much among the best that I've heard. And still, - it's not WARM and lush enough for me, for classical violins.
You may be able to tell from my posts that i've heard a lot of players, certainly, not nearly as many as others here, or as many as reviewers. But, - I have a pretty good feel for lots of different players. And, I can tell you in most all cases, that I hear SACD as being less noisy, less sibilant, and often, more restrained/less open than redbook.
As I've said before, if you take Jazz at the Pawnshop as an example, (and it could be due to a crappy implementation of SACD), the redbook is more alive, more open, less restricted and more "lifelike" than the quieter, less dynamic, and more restrained SACD version.
This is especially evident with something like Esoteric's magnesium transport, that adds a whole other dimension to redbook and SACD: bringing out an entirely new level of extreme detail that doesn't sacrifice any musicality, - simply more information comes through.
I think that if most of you here are saying: "Sordidman, shut up and compare them with classical," then you have a pretty valid point, as that's where SACD shines the most.
But I do want to say, as a very limited classical fellow, that before SACD has enough value to make it "worth it" to others like me, one has to buy a $3K SACD player and toss a good DAC on it to cover the 83.87% of listening time that's not available on SACD, or buy something like that kicks ass on Redbook, doesn't cost too much more than $6K, and has SACD as more of an afterthought that may or may not quite match the SACD section of a respected $3K SACD player.
I guess too.. that I'm whining a bit about the fact that beyond a few notable exceptions, - it costs more than $10K to buy a player that does both well... This is super low value IMO. When in fact, one can buy a pair of really, decent, well engineered, and great sounding speakers, or an amplifier, or monoblocks, for half of that $10K...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I was at VSAC 2001 when Stan Ricker and Paul Stubblebine did a demo using a 1" analogue tape console, Sony 777 and a DAT tape machine. All sources were taken from what was the original 1/4" tape that was used to record this great piece of art (yes, the guy used a dinky 1/4" machine with the mic on a boom, while either crouching in a bathroom or the kitchen, IIRC).Anyhow, all the sources were level matched and running through the same system and played back for a room of 60 or so. After multiple listens, the majority felt that the tape was superior, SACD second and hirez PCM was third.
While this isn't scientific, it was pretty neat.
Chris
You have several valid points. Perception of value is a funny thing and can easily be taken out of context. Thanks for detailing your own views and biases so clearly. It's not something many of us do well on here.I might argue the bit about the Esoteric magnesium transport, though. I referred to the SACD 'shoot-out' in the earlier message. In a direct and extended comparison between an X-01 (standard version) and the Ayre, we very much preferred the Ayre on both SACD and Redbook playback. Why? Because in general it sounded more like vinyl, which most of us - for better or for worse - use as a standard of comparison. It was, in fact, my own Ayre being used, which at the time was in for a trial (the dealer had given me the option of returning it). I kept it and have not once regretted the decision. It has provided many, many hours of pure pleasure. That is good value, in my opinion.
Mike
P.S. The objective of the above was definitely NOT to say that the Ayre player is the best thing going or certainly not to say that the X-01 is somehow inferior. I fully and completely understand why folks love their Esoterics. In the context of my system and with my preferred musical content, I made a choice. Seems sorta logical, wouldn't you agree?
I've seen and her that Ayre and I concur that it's a darn great player.Also, I have heard the Esoteric UX-1 and APL NWO re-engineer of it and was stunned at how much, (I thought), better the APL based UX-1 was to my AKM Denon APL, and to the stock UX-1.
This was probably due to the fact that the AKM DACs, output tubes, AND the amazing transport...
My point is this, (and the answer could be quite relevant), with the best implementations of redbook, like Zanden and Esoteric, and Audio Aero, doesn't it make SACD less relevant? My opinion is that these designers working today, - and I certainly include Mr. Hansen in that group, - have really IMPROVED redbook playback performance to such an extent, that unless SACD is tossed into the mix as an afterthought, - it's not that much better to make it worth paying for...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyNah, In my, not entirely lacking, experience SACD can beat CD at almost any price point. That's not surprising, there is simply more info available in the DSD data and DSD DACs are fundamentally simpler (tho the A/Ds, editing etc. are a different story.) And that's not even counting MC where the difference is greater. Admittedly, the cost and logistics aren't for everyone, but the destination is worth it.
-Ted
The LS SACDs in multichannel would put them over the top making them the greatest treasure!
Robertc88 wrote:
"The LS SACDs in multichannel would put them over the top making them the greatest treasure!"Why, Robert? They were originally stereo, not MCH, and where appropriate, RCA has issued them in three-channel. (Not that they were really designed to be heard that way.)
Would we really want them any more MCH than that? Not I. (And I'm more than happy with the two-channel.)
BTW, the Classic LP's tend to sound more like the old LS LP's than do the SACD's, the result, I believe, of EQing and "sweetening," as much as because of the LP format itself.
No contest in my experience for what I've tried just utilizing a Denon 3803AVR and a $100 SACD/DVD player! No, I didn't mean to imply anything more than 3 channel where appropriate for MCH in my post.Not sure why some folks are locked into doing comparisons between LPs and SACDs as they are two entirely different formats on different equipment. I suppose I can understand the comparisons from a curiousity perspective and I do welcome their feedback. But isn't it the old CD for which folks should be comparing SACD to???? Folks here without TTs aren't going to run out and buy one even if all folks here that one have one all admit vinyl beats SACD. Even with a TT, I'm not playing to buy any expensive "audiophile LPs" especially since I have a $500 TT versus a $2k SACD player. The LS SACDs are only $10 and most SACDs are under $20.
In most every case BTW for what I've tried (classical), MCH trumps two channel SACD. It's to the point I don't even bother listening to the SACD two channel track any more. I admit most can easily live with the two channel SACD over the CD but 3 channel is another step or two up on the ladder for which I enjoy even more! :)
Having auditionned the Accuphase DP-57 (bought it) as well as my current Plinius player., I would say the differences are indeed generally marginal between RBCD & SACD. However, with some well produced SACDs the differences can be really big too in favour of SACD. But those are rare occasions. That's why I was never really that crazy about SACD, though I definitely do enjoy listening to a well produced SACD just the same..:)AP
# The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men # Samuel L. Jackson (Ezekiel 25:17)> Pulp Fiction < Current Set-Up..Plinius CD101-> M8-> SA-REF-> Genesis IM-8300 <-
Sordidman wrote:
"What to do? Buy a nice $3K retail SACD machine used, and pick up a nice DAC like the Stello, Audio Note, or Benchmark...Putting a Stello DAC along with the Marantz SA11, improves the crappy redbook on that player enormously..."Excatly my strategy (as it turned out) with the Sony SCD-1 and the MF Tri-Vista. While I wouldn't call the SCD-1's red book performance "crappy," adding the Tri-Vista gave me what I feel to be the best of both worlds in that budget range: sweet, detailed, dimensional red book, and rich, robust, easy-on-the-ears SACD. I would not have been happy in the long run with the SCD-1 asa red book player.
That said, I don't believe in any kind of intentional "downgrading" of the redbook sections of SACD players.
I do agree that CD quality is much maligned and can sound really good, on the right player, and arguably better than SA-CD on a mid-fi player.I also agree that the differences between SA-CD and CD may be rather subtle. Certainly I think it would be unrealistic to expect a "night and day" difference, or that after listening to an SA-CD CDs will suddenly become unlistenable.
But it really boils down to how important the subtle differences are. I do hear something special with SA-CD that makes it worth it for me. That was evident from the very first SA-CD I listened to and still evident today. And multi-channel titles really add another dimension (apologies for the cliche) to the music and any stereo format just cannot compete with.
How would I describe the difference? Lately I have trying to produce an album of remixed songs so I have been spending a LOT of time on a digital audio workstation. One thing I have realised is that any processing in PCM (adding reverb, equalization, sometimes even volume changes) adds a tiny veil to the sound. It's very subtle, but it's there, and every time you add an effect you are subtracting something from the sound. To me, the difference between SA-CD and CD is similar to the difference between the "raw" unprocessed sound and a "processed" sound. There is something "fresh" about SA-CD that really reminds me of monitoring the raw unprocessed mix in a studio.
Since there's very little price differential between an SA-CD and the equivalent CD, the decision to buy the SA-CD if it's available is an easy one. If it's not available, no worries, I'm happy to buy the CD.
I would also disagree that "all of the SACD players purposely make their Redbook section suck". I have reviewed many players, and opened them and have a peek at their circuits. I have not seen any evidence on any of the players that I have reviewed that the manufacturer has deliberately contrained CD playback in order to make SA-CDs sound better.
when one throws PCM conversion of SACD into the mix....IMO, - the converting the SACD to PCM in the APL makes the SACD sound much better than direct DSD. But that's not the case on the Meitner, - (which does not do that, if I'm not mistaken). And, - I can't tell you whether or not the Meitner's really excellent SACD playback compared to its own redbook playback and other good SACD players is due to the fact its SACD technology/section is facing off with a not as good redbook section.
Perhaps I should temper my statement that Sony, Marantz, etc are not necessarily TRYING to purposely make their redbook section suck. But, especially in the case of the Marantz, - their redbook section DOES SUCK! This is really evident when one tosses the fine Benchmark DAC on it and vastly improves the redbook performance of the player. Whether or not it's more out of a lack of caring or not. But, if Marantz was building a $3000 redbook only CDP, - the quality would be a hell of a lot better than their SA-11. This evident with other players like the Ayre and Audio Aero where the differences between redbook and SACD are a hell of a lot less....
Again, everytime I play the Jazz at the Pawnshop SACD on my APL, and I've heard it too on the Ayre, Meitner and Esoteric: the redbook version of the same recording is MUCH better.... (more alive, more realistic, more organic, better PRAT).
But, - when I play Jazz at the Pawnshop redbook version vs the SACD version on the Marantz, - the SACD version is a lot better...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
It is easy to interpret something different as "better" when it is merely "different".I don't mean to slight either your listening preferences or Alex's design skills, but if you prefer DSD converted to PCM on a specific player then it's probably for euphonic or player specific reasons rather than the sound actually being "better".
Mathematically, converting DSD to PCM loses information, even assuming a "perfect" decimation filter (and they are anything but perfect). And then the DAC is internally oversampling the result and converting it back to sigma delta. It's kind of like saying you prefer listening to your LPs after recording them to digital and playing them back on a DAC.
There are myriad of possible reasons why on a specific player and/or DAC it may yield a subjective improvement. For example, the clock on the 3910 probably has higher jitter for DSD rates, and converting to PCM may make the issue less pronounced. Filtering ultrasonic noise may improve playback depending on your amp/speakers (it did on my old system). You may simply prefer the sound of the decimation filter. The DAC itself may be better at PCM than DSD (not surprising given it's probably a hybrid architecture).
"I don't mean to slight either your listening preferences or Alex's design skills, but if you prefer DSD converted to PCM on a specific player then it's probably for euphonic or player specific reasons rather than the sound actually being "better"."I have no argument against that, it makes perfect sense to me and I agree...but it's also almost an universal consensus of all APL owners, in regard to their players. (Unless I'm mistaken, one can't do that with the Meitner system).
"There are myriad of possible reasons why on a specific player and/or DAC it may yield a subjective improvement. For example, the clock on the 3910 probably has higher jitter for DSD rates, and converting to PCM may make the issue less pronounced. Filtering ultrasonic noise may improve playback depending on your amp/speakers (it did on my old system). You may simply prefer the sound of the decimation filter. The DAC itself may be better at PCM than DSD (not surprising given it's probably a hybrid architecture)."
I don't have enough engineering knowledge to say whether that may, or may not be the case. I can tell you though that conversion to PCM sounds better, more natural, and more organic to me, - whatever the heck I'm listening to...
And, sure, it's a given that it's a subjective choice: as EVERYTHING is in high end audio's artistic interpretation. A designer decides to use Hovland caps, or no caps, or go buy the special super duper oil and build her own caps: they're all artistic, subjective choices...
In this particular, I think, (if I'm not totally mistaken), that an APL owner forgot to reset their player back to Source Direct DSD after watching a DVD and reported to other owners that the PCM conversion sounded much better to them...
Cheers,
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I wasn't sure how you were going to react to my post, so thanks for taking it in the spirit that it was intended.I do agree that subjective impressions are the heart of why we enjoy music - at the end of the day we have to enjoy the music, regardless of theoretical objections. However, subjective impressions can also be misleading - as Ted pointed out, some people seem to *like* jitter, and upsampling filters, PCM "ringing" artefacts, etc..
If the majority of APL owners prefer to listen to SA-CDs converted to PCM, then that is a valid mode of listening. However, it may be a result that is very system specific, and can't be generalised into "therefore DSD converted to PCM is a good thing under ALL circumstances"
Since you like stories, I can offer two short ones.
Once I visited the home of a well known SA-CD basher who used to frequent this forum. This person used to say that SA-CD sounded dull and the high frequencies don't have the crispness of PCM. Well, guess what, I listened to his system and he is right! On *his* system, it is clear that SA-CD high frequencies sounded terrible! However, that is *not* the experience I have listening to SA-CDs on Ted's or mikel's or even my system.
Another short story: at one stage CDs actually sounded better than SA-CDs on my (old) system. It surprised even me, but it was unmistakeable. High frequencies sounded dull and smeary, and lack the punchiness and crispness of DVD-Audio or even CD.
After some experimentation, I discovered the reason. My amp did not handle the ultrasonic noise generated by DSD very well - simply applying a low pass filter made it sound much better. On that basis, I upgraded my amps and now SA-CDs sound just fine.
So I'm not surprised that many APL owners may prefer the sound of DSD converted to PCM. But at the same time, I personally would prefer not converting and solving system specific issues with DSD playback directly.
Cheers Christine...Right...
I do have a tendency to be a bit vociferous in my overzealous support of artistic considerations in the high end.
Honestly, - I do believe that there is more of an "objective-like" analysis available, - at least to the point where most of us would agree that SACD has more info available. We may not agree that we prefer a certain flavor, = Krell's vs. Musical Fidelity for example, - their unique interpretations of what they each think is "good" SACD.
And, also, after reading many of my posts in this thread: (apologies for being too ubiquitous), one could get the impression that I'm saying that SACD implementations are equal on average to redbook, or even not as good. This is not my belief, = as I believe on average that most SACD recordings are generally BETTER than their redbook counterparts. With a few notable exceptions, SACD in stereo, just isn't worth spending the extra money for most of us....
If it comes along for the ride, beautiful.
Personally, - I'm thinking of downsizing. And if I do, I'm getting a redbook only CDP, a nice $2K set of standmounts that have great synergy with the CDP and a great tube amp, where the three together minimize each others shortcomings and emphasize each others positive attributes.
SACD certainly will not be in the mix, as my downstairs neighbor gave me a Toshiba DVD player and that'll cover my world. I'll sacrifice a close to a SOTA system, but I'll be in Italy a couple of times a year more, and that'll go a long way towards forgetting about the detail, resolution, organic beauty, and amazing soundstaging: a little step back, with cash in the pocket..
I hear you, and do not dispute, or discount the weight of what you say when relating both the differences in PCM vs DSD as possibly being unique to the APL and also, = the person's system whom you visited actually sounding better with PCM. I've had similar experiences as the most important IS the whole system, and different components react differently in different situations: it's all about complete system synergy.
I've heard too many great, individual components, sound what I view as crappy, when matched with what I view as the wrong mate.
Cheers Christine..
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
Hey you are not writing a book about living in Tuscany, are you? :-)The market for those kind of books may be a bit oversaturated ...
If you are downsizing, I would recommend going for hard disk based system, a great DAC, amp and speakers. 500GB drives are now in the retail market, which means 2x 500 GB = 1TB which should be more than enough to house your entire CD collection, DVD-Audio plus every LP digitized to 96/24. Of course, SA-CD is not in the picture either, except when the CD layer is ripped.
That would be *my* desert island selection. Although I'm not sure 1TB is enough, maybe 2 TB with redundancy.
We have a 2 Terabit server in the basement running lossless ITunes. I dumped 700 ceedees down and my neighbor dumped 100. I have cat5 running up to an IBook which runs USB out to a converter box that converts to the APL digital input...Sounds pretty darn awesome...Not so much a fan of Tuscany, I prefer the crowded, dirty, south where North Americans are afraid to go... :-)
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyYou said "... (Unless I'm mistaken, one can't do that with the Meitner system)." Tho this isn't quite the same I found it interesting:
One of my friends who can't stand vinyl and thinks something is missing in my system was over and I had a thought.
I hooked my player up with the SPDIF digital interconnect instead of the ST glass fiber interconnects and played a CD for him.
The difference? Whether the CD to DSD conversion was being done in the transport or the DAC. Since both are implemented by Meitner and (tho I don't have direct confirmation from EMM Labs) I believe they are identical up converts. So the real difference it the amount of jitter caused by the SPDIF interconnect.
Guess what? He liked the extra jitter better!
So I used my CD jukebox as a transport instead and he liked that better.
I'm not implying that you or other APL customers resemble my friend or that this experienced is in anyway the same as yours but I was surprised that anyone would prefer more jitter :)
-Ted
.
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
Here are just two problems I have never heard solved be even megabuck CD players including Cary Audio tubed units:1) CDs have a "real life" artificial midrange boost that makes massed strings very painful for me to experience.
2) CDs have a "real life" rolled off high end that takes all the impact and "ting" out of high percussion instruments.
I say "real life" because CDs actually measure well between 20-20kHz, they just are tonally incorrect and this something I don't think we can measure yet.
Because of the brick wall filters and the upper frequency limit of 20kHz for CDs I do not believe these problems can over be solved for 44.1kHz PCM.
By contrast at 24 Bit 96kHz PCM (on a great sounding DVD player) massed strings do not the coarseness of 44.1kHz but they are still not as smooth as Analog. And percussion interments have impact and that delicate "ting" again not as much as Analog.
Now take SACD. If an SACD is made from a well made Analog or DSD tape, usually the midrange and high frequencies are near correct and enjoyable. And to a lesser degree at PCM 24 Bit 96kHz. But at PCM 24 Bit 48kHz you get sound that is almost as rough in the strings and rolled off in the high percussion instruments as you do with 44.1kHz PCM.
In other words, anyone that says the CD sounds as good as SACD is deluding themselves because it is not true! . Never has been never will be. PCM at low resolution such is CD is a total joke. And I cannot believe anyone is honestly trying to this comparison.
Comparing SACD to CD is like comparing an 8 Track Cartridge to a 2 Track 15ips Reel to Reel tape.
The difference between CD and SACD is drastic and huge, extremely huge.
Even Audiophile analog cassette has greater fidelity than even the best CDs and you can prove that for yourself. Just compare ANY Mobile Fidelity High Fidelity cassettes versus the 24k Gold CD version. CDs are a low fidelity medium and will stay that way.
Teresa
"1) CDs have a "real life" artificial midrange boost that makes massed strings very painful for me to experience.""Nope, - not with a "good" CDP, - and I'm betting that if you find "your-right" CDP, - you'd change your mind. AND, - this issue is yours alone, - please don't hold that up as universally accepted maxim.
"2) CDs have a "real life" rolled off high end that takes all the impact and "ting" out of high percussion instruments. "
Nope, - see above. In fact, most folks believe the opposite. They dig SACD as the highs are more recessed and closed in and more of the natural sibilance of sibilant instruments is restrained with SACD. Check out Jazz at the Pawnshop....
"In other words, anyone that says the CD sounds as good as SACD is deluding themselves because it is not true! . Never has been never will be. PCM at low resolution such is CD is a total joke. And I cannot believe anyone is honestly trying to this comparison "
This is just your own opinion. As a matter of fact, many, many, people, reviewers, and others who have listened to many players, assert that certain redbook only players are so damn good, and so darn SOTA, - like those who love the Zanden, and again, the Estoteric, - assert that the top tier SACD players just don't do much if anything better than the more open, natural, and organic character of these players....
Your entitled to your opinion, and I respect you. But I must say that at least from my own experience, - I highly disagree with you. I'm at least one person who is opposed to your universal maxim that SACD always sounds better, - as I definitely do not..
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
Hi guysI agree with Teresa but not for the same reasons.SACD IS better than cd.DVD-Audio,well...close,but no cigar.To my ears,it still sounds digital.sacd may fool you,in a way :)
No,cd,sacd and dvd-audio,no matter how they are recorder (24 bit 128 khz whatever) can't touch vinyl in 3 areas.Dimensionality,high frequencies and lack of hardness. Believe me,i am no analoque addict.
I wish i could throw away all my lps and get a small silver disc that needs no careful storing and cleaning let alone the hussle to have to turn the lp to listen to side b. Anyway,Teresa says sacd is better than cd and yes,i agree,but i have in my collection certain hdcd cd that to my ears are better than sacd but hey,everyone is entitled to his/her opinion,right ?
Cary 306/200 Denon dvd-5910 in case you are wondering what "junk" i am using. lol
I think they actually sound quite good.HDCD properly used is supposed to remove the additive "distortions" of Digital and by adding more resolution solve the subtractive "distortions" as well.
So at least Reference Recordings, FIM and a very few others use HDCD that actually sound way better than it would be believed they could. Not as good as Reference Recordings LPs but much, much better than a Redbook CD. However 99% of HDCDs from other record labels sound nearly as bad as Redbook CDs IMHO.
Teresa
Absolutely, everyone is entitled to their opinion....As I mentioned above, SOTA redbook CD playback is so damn close to SACD, - from the SOTA devices that I've heard, - that the lack of software available for SACD, plus a certain percentage of poor SACD recordings: (remember all SACD recordings are NOT created equal), make SACD not worth the price of entry. If you've heard the Zanden redbook, the UX-1 redbook, the Audio Aero redbook, the APL AKM redbook, - whichever of those "flavors" you prefer, - they stack up quite well and even better than many of the $3K SACD players' SACD section, and they also stack up favorably with the SACD sections in their OWN players, - if they're Universal players.
I say this based on Ed Meitner's new work. I've heard certain redbook CDs that actually SOUND better than their SACD counterparts of the same music. Of course, one might say that that SACD master was done poorly. But by the very fact that we can say that, (Jazz at the Pawnshop), means that Mr. Meitner has IMPROVED redbook playback, and that the MEDIUM of redbook CAN be IMPROVED and that there was/is more to milk from the medium still.
I think that the outrageously expensive Zanden system is a bit on the syrupy, warm, romantic, side. Still it is very organic, very detailed, very real sounding, especially with violins and string sections, pianos and acoustic guitars. IMO, there is no $5K and below SACD player whose SACD section sounds as good as the Zanden redbook implementation. Now, who wants to drop over $40K on redbook? But, it is at least possible to improve redbook to the point where it beats or equals SACD... and, hey, compared to every other medium, how much more available are redbook cds?
I apologize for repeating myself, but after some thought, I think that I said it better here in this post...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
This makes absolutely no sense to me.The perceived boosted midrange and rolled off highs are only two of Digital’s many, many problems, which I call "Digitalis". Digitalis starts to disappear at 96kHz and is almost totally gone at 192kHz. The only time SACD exhibits "Digitalis" is when it is transferred to lower resolution PCM at some point either in recording or mastering. SACDs from DSD or Analog masters do not suffer from "Digitalis"
The formats that are the most tonally correct and the closest to live acoustic music are the analog formats, especially Reel to Reel and Audiophile LPs. SACD from Analog or DSD masters does a great job of mimicking analog and real life acoustic music in a natural setting. PCM at any resolution lower than 96kHz cannot and so far has not done that.
SACD does not always sound better, it's Vinyl that usually sounds better. But SACDs sound much better than the extremely low resolution CD.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Because it's not about raw potential "fidelity" of the medium, it's about good recording quality (which shines through!)The carrier does not determine whether or not the original recording is well done and pleasing. A good recording is good on an LP, a cassette or on the radio. All of these are less than 12 bit mediums.
But LP especially at 45 RPM has more resolution than Digital, it's measured in analog terms not digital terms. Bits of resolution is a digital term. Analog mediums record and playback "musical waveforms". Digital mediums’ record "musical waveforms" convert them to 1's and 0's then on playback convert them from 1's and 0's back into "musical waveforms". As you can see Bits are involved only in Digital formats.Also recording quality (engineering) cannot shine though if the medium (low resolution PCM 44.1kHz and 48kHz) is crippled.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa wrote:
"Digitalis starts to disappear at 96kHz and is almost totally gone at 192kHz."Teresa: for red book, have you tried, or considered, 96k or 192k oversampling? This is the red book solution for me. While it's not in the class of true 96k discs, it has a lot of the character, and can sound vey good indeed. And what it does best is get rid of that digital haze you hate (me, too).
Even though the upper midrange isn't as shrill and painful as before, I just can't handle the missing delicacy in the high frequencies making me feel like something very important in the music is missing. Thus keeping me from getting into the music, as I cannot suspend reality to melt into the music.Upsampling is as much "polishing a turd" as is all the other insane steps I've taken to try to make CD sound decent to me. Notice I said “to me” as it appears other people as not as sensitive and/or can hear around the gross errors of low resolution 44.1kHz PCM. I cannot so it won't work for me. Music does no good for me if I cannot connect with it. I can connect with better SACDs and LPs, I cannot with CDs. And as I have stated after the follow-up to the "Shine-Ola" experiments I will not be playing with redbook CD ever again. That painful chapter in my life is over and done with!
Teresa
"This makes absolutely no sense to me."Until you listen to the two discs back to back...
The SACD one sounds quieter, less dynamic, more restrained and restricted with less airs around the highs, less live, less organic feel, and ultimately, far less realistic.
"The formats that are the most tonally correct and the closest to live acoustic music are the analog formats, especially Reel to Reel and Audiophile LPs. SACD from Analog or DSD masters does a great job of mimicking analog and real life acoustic music in a natural setting. PCM at any resolution lower than 96kHz cannot and so far has not done that."
In your opinion, but you haven't heard the magnesium transport on the Esoteric, or the AKM DAC on the APL, have you heard the Meitner? The Ayre? On ALL of those players, the CD sounded better. Could Mr. mudman, - AKA, - Mobile Fidelity, - have tossed on some EXTRA noise reduction that also cut off info on his SACD implementation?, - like the old Dolby Labs products? I don't know... (ASIDE: I apologize in advance, but I'm not a fan of Mobile Fidelity, - in my opinion, {and I know that I've been a bit facetious}, - he cuts treble to try and eliminate sibilance or something, hence makes crappy recordings).
"SACD does not always sound better, it's Vinyl that usually sounds better. But SACDs sound much better than the extremely low resolution CD."
nope, upsampled redbook, sounds better than poorer SACD implementations: all SACD is NOT created equal. And both good SACD, and good redbook, compete well with vinyl's horrible pops, clicks, snaps and surface noise, that all that most diligent of cleaners can't eliminate after 10 or 12 plays. With just the one example of the AKM DAC, tubed output stage player in the APL, so too in the Audio Aero, Ayre, Esoteric players.Just listen to the wonderful, lifelike, detailed resolution that the magnesium transport on the Esoteric UX-1 kicks out and you'll be stunned that that "low resolution" far exceeds your previous expectations: when you get that amazing read from that transport, more info gets to your ears and amazes you...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I generally agree that the difference is not that great. There are much bigger differences between how the software is recorded which makes the arguement about format types (analog, SACD, DVD, CD) mostly irrelevent in my opinion. That does not mean that I would not opt for a SACD instead of a CD in the case of two equally well recorded discs.Heck, I recall a guy who's sound from a tuner bettered a medeocre-recorded CD - which puts this whole discussion in perspective.....
This conversation is all a matter of perspective though.
Retsel
> > Once you get up into the SACD/Universal machines with excellent transports, - like the high dollar Esoteric, the Ayre, the APL, Audio Aero, and Meitner: you hear less of a difference between the SACD layer and the CD layer. < <My Ayre is an excellent CD player. Contrary to your statement, there is a marked difference between Redbook and SACD on my player.
I have also listened to other "high dollar" players in my system, and have found that most of them also exhibit a noticeable difference between Redbook and SACD. If it were not so, then SACD players and SACD discs would be useless.
If your player obscures the differences between Redbook and SACD as much as you are implying, and if you are happy with your player, perhaps you should stick to Redbook. It's generally cheaper and there is indeed a wider selection of geezer/boomer rock.
I liked the Ayre a lot and found it to be excellent on both redbook and SACD and closer to the APL than the Meitner in that there wasn't as much of a difference between the two. But you're an owner and I will not question your experience as it has to be much more extensive than mine....Cheers,
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
Why is SACD (in one lump) always compared to the "the best vinyl" or "really great redbook"? If you want a high-end CD player to squeeze the best sound possible out of the vast array of available CDs, that makes sense. But it's silly dismiss SACD because it ONLY sounds as good or slightly BETTER that a mega-buck CD player with a cream-of-the-crop recording. Sounds like an unnecessary rationalization of high-priced CD Players and turntables, to me.Averaged over available recordings and various price levels of players, SACD easily outperforms Redbook.
Most of us HAVE to compare...Why? There is no music on SACD. So, - one has to choose wisely when they come to a decision regarding SACD. This is especially true because of the lack of software, - if the software was all "good recordings," - whatever that means, - then it would be different.
Take for example the recording of "Jazz at the Pawnshop." There is at the very least, a ton of debate about the fact that the SACD layer is MUCH WORSE, - than the redbook layer. Or, - the Nora Jones SACD, - wherein the SACD layer was made from the Redbook layer...
Having listened to several of the crop of SACD players that in the $1,000 range, - there isn't ONE SACD CD that sounds as good as the same remastered recording in redbook through my APL, Meitner, etc.. AND EVEN the $2.5K Audio Aero Prima. If you take Peter Gabriel's remastered redbook and Peter Gabriel's remastered SACDs, - the redbook recording trounces ANY and all SACD players in the $1K range..
So, it is important to get the right thing....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyI have upwards of 3000 SACDs, there's plenty of music there.
Now, I know that people with more limited taste than I have (perhaps more discriminating :) ) might find fewer titles to their liking, but there is a lot of great music available on SACD.
-Ted
the TalkTalk and Goldfrapp... one Herbie Hancock...
very, very, dire...Mostly kidding... As classical goes down in flames, it's ironic that it's the only genre where there is any SACDs....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I find CD, even megabuck CD to be totally unlistenable for Classical Music. The massed strings are total "murder" on CD!Curious about Peter Gabriel, I have heard him on LP, CD and SACD and his music is very low fidelity. I only bought the LP because it was a 50 cents, the CD was from the library and the SACD I bought because it was an SACD.
Do you listen to any music actually requires realistic portrayal of the original acoustic sound field, such as Classical or Jazz acoustic recordings?
I am totally shocked!
Teresa
Although I recognize that SACD really only has the most value if you like Classical music: which even here, - the majority of people who listen to even High-end systems do not... Consider that the most popular posts are about the Dylan, Stones, Dire Straits, and other misc. jazz and rock titles in SACD.If you are thinking that SACD titles like the TalkTalk, Sting, Herbie Hancock, Steely Dan and Peter Gabriel are bad recordings, - I suggest that you're not listening closely: they are excellent, IMO.
Lastly, if you haven't heard the Audio Aero, Esoteric, Meitner and other top tier players with TUBE OUTPUT stages, - then you have not heard how organic, natural, musical and lifelike both SACD and Redbook reproduction can be. These top tier players, (and I'm not saying that they are high value: that's in the eye of the beholder, {and they are absurdly expensive}, simply bring one closer to their favorite music, whatever it may be).
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
If you're comparing "top tier" RBCD players with tube output stages to $1000 SACD players and finding that they are the equal (or better) of the SACD player in sound quality . . . and you're not using symphonic music in your comparison.I don't think your comparison proves much . . . except that you like the sound of tube output stages.
I also agree with Teresa that massed strings (as in symphonic music) is one of those sounds that RBCD does not reproduce well. The other is brass, especially massed trumpets. Again, something that RBCD does not do well. These are common in classical symphonic music. In both cases, what is problematic are the high-frequency overtones of these instruments which seem to drive the RBCD playback system a little crazy.
That said, I will agree with you that my good RBCD recordings sound close to my SACD recordings, both played on my XA777ES, with the DACS paralleled for RBCD playback and the "filter" setting. However, to my ears there is a substantial quality difference between native DSD recordings and SACD re-releases from analog masters, such as the "Living Stereo" and "Living Presence" re-releases. So, if you're comparing an RBCD re-release and an SACD re-release of some recording from an analog master, the difference may not be so dramatic. (In addition, the re-mastering of one may be better.)
I think rock music is a very poor source to use as a comparison. With the execption of the drum kit and the vocals, all the rest of it is electronic.
Jazz is a better comparator. I think if you listen closely to the sound of the acoustic piano you will hear a difference between RBCD and SACD. To my ears, RBCD reproduction of acoustic piano gives it, in varying degrees, an "electronic" sound that I don't hear on vinyl or on SACD.
Also, my particular loudspeakers are a bit "mellow-balanced" in that they roll off a few DB in the top octave, so they might not be the most revealing of "digital nasties."
"very low fidelity" especially the SACD releases, either isn't really listening or dosent know what they are talking about.They may not be the best recordings available, but they certainly are not "Low Fidelity."
Peter Gabriel's work has often been praised for having quite reasonable fidelity for rock music. You don't like the genre - we know that.I have all his early albums on LP and, particularly from PG3 onwards, they are very well made. I have some of his first CDs, all the remastered CDs from a few years back, and all the SACDs. While the CDs and SACDs are not in the same league as the LPs, they are very satisfying.
Help me out here - which LP do you have for 50 cents? Which SACD did you buy?
Regards,
Geoff
I was not impressed with the sonics or the music. Though I do like the song "Shock the Monkey" from Shaking the Tree which is actually one of the worst sounding with rolled off highs and no bass and no image to speak of. I guess I'm not a fan as if I was I likely could hear around the sonic problems.Teresa
I cannot speak for any LP version nor the Greatest hits package since I have never owned them. The CDs and SACDs from the rest of the catalog are a different story.Your complaints are the opposite of the impression myself and others have of these disks. If anything, the original CD version of "So", is often considered to be a bright sounding disk, hardly not rolled off. The SACD version is much more natural to my ears, but still not rolled off.
As a rule, PG recordings typically feature gobs of low bass, since his style includes a great deal of percussion and synths. The original CD version of Shock the Monkey from "Security" and the "Passion" disk , (which is the soundtrack from "The Last Temptation of Christ") were often used as reference material to judge bass performance. The is sub 50 hz information present and those passages (and many others), will provide a heavy duty workout for my Sunfire sub.
I stand by what I've said. PG works in general should in no way be considered low fidelity. Perhaps you have a bass management problem?
Recordings that have great bass are powerful indeed, they shake the walls. the floors and I can almost feel the bass in the pit of my stomach.The opening of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" by Richard Strauss is a great example with 16Hz pipe-organ petal tones. Or the 8Hz cannon shots in Telarc's 1812 Overture. Many of the symphonies of Mahler have very powerful low frequencies.
But Peter Gabriel? I don't think so! Maybe more low frequencies than some rock. And yes "So" is a little bright on LP but the bass is still rolled off. "Shock the Monkey" is rolled off at both frequency extremes both bass and treble.
To my ears Peter Gabriel is low fidelity, sorry.
Teresa
This is a standout track.A wonderful duet from two powerful voices - Kate of course is stellar.
Listen to the bass solo and the low notes from the synthesizer. Since the lowest note on a normally-tuned electric bass guitar is E1 at 41.2 Hz, you are not digging into the realms of subsonic - and there's little real music there. 16Hz pipe or 8Hz cannon shots be damned - that's not bass we care about.
If your system doesn't nail the bass guitar solo on this record, don't blame the recording.
16 Golden Greats (CD, SACD) was recognized by most as the poorest recording of the bunch. But you had "So" on SACD. That's a good one.
Still, you are so biased against challenging rock music such as Mr. Gabriel makes that I don't trust your comments on the sonics. The fact that, of all the songs on "Shaking the Tree", you liked "Shock the Monkey" - the most lightweight of all the numbers, says volumes.
Regards,
Geoff
If Teresa thinks PG represents low fidelity, what rock albums does she think sound good? None of them apparently.
Emerson, Lake and Palmer (self titled first album)
The Animals: Love Is (2 LP set on MGM, UK pressing is killer)
Boogie with Canned Heat
Men without Hats: Rhythm of Youth
Donavon: Hurdy Gurdy Man (especially the Indian flavored songs)
The Sheffield Track Album
The Sheffield Drum Album
Crusin' with the Desotos (on Wilson Audiophile LP)
Crosby, Stills and Nash (self titled LP with Suite Judy Blue Eyes)
David Crosby: If I Could only Remember My Name
The Crazy World of Arthur Brown (especially "Spontaneous Apple Creation" and Fire)
The Beach Boys: Pet Sounds (the new Capitol 180 Gram Stereo pressing)
The Beatles (white album)
Paul McCartney: Ram
Cream: Fresh Cream
Just to name 15.Happy listening,
Teresa
Well I can speak to at least a half dozen of these, the rest either aren’t rock or are total trash anyway. I don’t think there is anything there from the last 20 years.Its been quite some time since I've listened to the first ELP and CS&N disks. So I'll withhold comments on those. While the Beatles white album and Maccos Ram are decent sounding, neither is as good as several of those Gabriel disks that started this discussion. In fact, the best sounding Beatles disks should include Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper, (which both won Grammies for best sound in their day). Pet sounds and Cream are also decent choices. McCartney’s Venus and Mars is a better choice than Ram (another Grammy winner for sound if I'm not mistaken).
This is pretty much what I'd expect from Teresa when asked to list best sounding rock disks. A mish-mash of total crap and B-listers, with a liberal amount of audiophile disks tossed in. Nowhere in the list is there anything truly stellar sounding (except possibly Pet Sounds).
Most telling is what is missing from the list. Off the top of my head, here are 15 truly well recorded rock disks you should have included, and I won’t even use any of the PG stuff:Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here
Supertramp: Crime of the Century
Eagles: Hell Freezes Over
Roger Waters: Amused to Death
Ricky Lee Jones (debut disk)
Joe Jackson: Body and Soul
Beatles: Abbey Road
Steely Dan: Aja
Steely Dan: Two Against Nature
Alan Parsons: Turn of a Friendly Card (and nearly anything else)
Fleetwood Mac: Rumors
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms
Steve Winwood: Back in the High Life
As Stewart: Time PassagesI could easily list you 10 more with decent sonic grades, and many more that would be much less mainstream (try "Ain't Love Grand", by the Suitcase Pimps, for instance). I'll bet Metralla can list 15 more (and I'd love to see his list, I might learn about something new), and I'll bet he agrees with the majority of my choices, and me with his. Good sounding rock recording is a pretty universal thing.
So what is the reason none of these titles are on Teresa’s list? Maybe she hasn't ever heard them? Maybe its because she's biased against Rock music? Maybe she doesn’t take this type of music seriously? Maybe all of the above. It scares me to think of what would be on her worst sounding list!
Unlike the vast majority of classical music audiophiles out there, I can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough ("Who's Next" comes to mind, as does the Zeppelin catalog). I don’t limit myself to listening to Sheffield Labs crap and direct-to-disk nonsense, because for me the Sonics never overshadow the performance. Teresa can't say the same. To her the sonics come first, and ALL rock sonics are "very low fidelity" compared to massed strings from 180 gram vinyl playing through a vacuum tube front end.
I don't pretend to know much about classical music. Hence, I would never try to recommend to someone what sounds good and what doesn’t in the classical vein. I don't know, and I could really care less anyway. It’s all pretty boring to me. But I don’t tell others that something is "very low fidelity" when in truth I haven't got a clue. Teresa would do well to follow that philosophy.
but most of Teresa's suggestions were closer to my taste, musically. There are genuinely well recorded albums, and there are albums that just sound good. Then again there are recordings that sound sterilely clean, but come across as being over-produced. Which recordings fall into which category is a matter of taste, and taste in music is an emotional thing....as you've both demonstrated.
There's hundreds of CD recordings at local libraries to explore. I started out slowly and it is now the genre of music I have listened to most in the last year. Jazz will also be my favorite but classical music is another endless pit for which there are great rewards for those who stick with it!BTW, there are lots of great sounding multichannel classical SACDs.
Compare Side Two (the acoustic side) of the Beatles White Album to any Beatles album including Abbey Road and you will see why I chose the White Album as the best sounding.The sonics of Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s first LP, the one with Lucky Man and Just Take a Pebble are far superior to their more popular (in audiophile circles) Trilogy. The best sounding LP they ever did.
What you don't like Donovan, Arthur Brown, Canned Heat or any the others? Check out "On the road again" from Canned Heat their first and best sounding LP, I sounds very real and a great song to boot! And some of the other rock I listed has sound quality that is on par with better Jazz records.
Men Without Hats: Rhythm of Youth which is now 22 years old is the most modern rock music I like and sonically it is killer! This is an LP to show off your stereo system.
I noticed popular music going downhill since the mid 1980's and it has never recovered. Modern rock music is full of "distortion" on purpose; depressing lyrics and singers who sound like they just woke up from a nightmare. I'm sorry I just can't get into any Rock/Pop music written since the mid 1980's.
From your list:
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon (Not bad but way over-rated, On the Run and Time are good, and there are some neat sound effects but the music just doesn't sound realistic)
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here (I didn't like this LP at all for sound or music)
Supertramp: Crime of the Century (sound isn't bad on the MFSL LP but the I didn't care for the music, sold it on eBay)
Eagles: Hell Freezes Over (never owned it as I hated their other album Hotel California)
Roger Waters: Amused to Death (would like to hear this one, I do have the Video of In The Flesh Live on DVD 16 Bit 48kHz in 2 channel stereo)
Ricky Lee Jones (debut disk)(didn't like her voice)
Joe Jackson: Body and Soul (Don't like him either)
Beatles: Abbey Road (Great LP, white album better although Here Comes the Sun written by George Harrison is great)
Steely Dan: Aja (Had the MFSL of this one - I hated it sold it on eBay)
Steely Dan: Two Against Nature (Had the DVD-Audio of this because it was raved about, didn't like it either)
Alan Parsons: Turn of a Friendly Card (and nearly anything else) (This one I do like but sonically doesn't compare with the 15 I listed, all the Alan Parsons Project albums are good)
Fleetwood Mac: Rumors (Some really good songs, not best in sound though)
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms (Had the 180 Gram LP and the SACD, very overrated and sound is good but not great)
Steve Winwood: Back in the High Life (Didn't like although I do like most of the Traffic LPs)
As Stewart: Time Passages (Hated the MFSL LP of this one at lot!)I don't pretend to know anything about Rock/Pop music except what I like and what sounds good on my system. Remember you asked me "What Rock I thought sounded good" since on my stereo Peter Gabriel sounds so bad. I was honest and I do have a clue Peter Gabriel doesn't sound good on my system, the ones listed I own and they do.
Happy listening and don't forget to boogie,
Teresa
I can see you are way out of your element with Rock sonics as well.....But enough. I already knew that. I dont want to perpetuate this.
Consider not making reccomendations on rock recordings, whether they be about the sonics or performance. Every time you do you come out looking like a bigger idiot.
I explained my answer and you attacked again.You keep forgetting you are the one who asked my what I thought were good sounding rock recordings.
All of your attacking will not make Peter Gabriel’s recordings sound any less cold or give them any type of sonic realism they do not possess. You cannot bully someone into believing something sounds good when it clearly does not.
You badly need an attitude adjustment.
You do not have to agree with what I think sounds good but you do not have to attack either. Understand?
Teresa
joyzmantoyz,I congratulate you on an excellent post. I hope Teresa reads it. And your choices of good sounding albums is stellar, though "Two Against Nature" doesn't quite make it, in my book (though I like the album). I hope to get some time to think of some of my favs. "The Boatman's Call" by Nick Cave comes immediately to mind.
I can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough
Agree in spades!!
I'm a real novice at classical, but have a ton of SACDs. So I listen to what Teresa says in that area (and have all the Vanguards, including the two that she had at the top of her SACD list).
As far as rock goes, Teresa is out of her element.
Regards,
Geoff
I told him and he attacked. I was perfectly honest and I own all the LPs I said sounded best to me.I too can forgive a poor recording if the performance is good enough
But the question was not about performances, it was about sound quality only.
And Peter Gabriel does not sound good on my system either on LP, CD or SACD.
Glad you are enjoying the Vanguard SACDs. Now that is something I can get excited about!
Happy listening,
Teresa
I would have taken Fagen's Nightfly over TAN, but that is a good post any way you split it.peace
You are right, The Nightfly does have killer sound.My experience with Two Against Nature (and with Everything Must Go for that matter) is strictly with the DVD-Audio multi-channel version. Perhaps the standard CD is not as good. I've never heard it.
With respect to Steely Dan, Gaucho also has decent sonics and could have been included. In fact, there are probably dozens of other disks that could have been included. Those were the first 15 I thought of that I felt were most recognisable.
Performance wise, try Walter Beckers solo album "11 tracks of Whack"
Well hell, if you enjoyed the DVD-A of those two then you really need to pickup Nightfly on DVD-A!! But, the cd is very well done. ( A shame Aja hasn't made hi-rez format but thats been talked about.) Would have a hard time getting past Becker's vocals espicially after hearing him do a couple of tracks live some time back. Stayed away from Whack because of that but may now give it a try.Peace
Well hell, if you enjoyed the DVD-A of those two then you really need to pickup Nightfly on DVD-A!! But, the cd is very well done. ( A shame Aja hasn't made hi-rez format but thats been talked about.) Would have a hard time getting past Becker's vocals espicially after hearing him do a couple of tracks live some time back. Stayed away from Whack because of that but may now give it a try.Peace
My impression of the DVD-A is that there is very little difference between it and the standard redbook version (but the Redbook is truly stellar to begin with). That is, until you play the multi channel tracks... then it sets itself apart as something special.I haven't heard "Morf the Cat" yet. But I will get it soon. My music budget is dealing with getting the five Moody Blues SACD releases. Two down, three to go.
And you are not alone wishing for the remainder of the Dan catalog coming on Hirez. Aja and Countdown would be amazing I'm sure.
I can understand being afraid of Beckers vocals. But check out the disk, or try to listen on line at Amazon. It'll surprise you. Fagin is on it as well. Check out "Surf and/or Die" and "Down on the Bottom"
grrr
Regards,
Geoff
I actually enjoy them, even though the four tunes on the Sheffield Track Album are more like Jazz than Rock. It does show how good electric instruments can sound with a little TLC.The question was sonics not the musical content. But hey I do like all 15 I listed.
Teresa
HowdyHaving heard a lot of the players you mention, I have a different opinion. Both in that the difference that multichannel offers and that the sound of DSD vs Redbook SACD on players which don't convert to PCM (e.g. the Meitner) is quite real to me and definitely worth it. I'll agree that the difference on the players that convert DSD to PCM is less (e.g. the Esoteric.)
I do enjoy Redbook, but I'll always choose MC or stereo SACD when available.
-Ted
On the APL, I have the ability to go DSD or to convert to PCM. Converting to PCM sounds much better. Neither sounds that much different. But, - on the Meitner, - the difference between SACD and redbook is more dramatic; but that doesn't mean that I'm saying that the difference in the Meitner is dramatic. It's my opinion that a good Redbook remaster, and a good SACD recording are still darn close. For me, - close enough to not bothering to spend the extra dough on the SACD that I can't take over and play on my bedroom system.Yeah, = a good multichannel recording will probably be a lot huger than a good 2 channel redbook recording. But aren't those even more rare??
Cheers Ted,
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyThere are a lot of great MC recordings.
A lot of music that was recorded in quad is becoming available. Some of it might be termed gimmicky by some, but others consider it immersive.
There are also a lot of minimally processed acoustic recordings which sound quite real: e.g. applause comes from behind you while the performance is in front of you :)
=Ted
"There are also a lot of minimally processed acoustic recordings which sound quite real: e.g. applause comes from behind you while the performance is in front of you :) "That would be the ONLY kind of multichannel that I would find of value. And, as you mentioned, the two possible associations, 1. Home Theatre, and 2. Quad; are the things that scare the living bejesus out of, I'm sure, more than just me...
But, then again, I'm finding some Talking Heads, PG, Bjork, and Portishead things on video that utilize multi-channel as though you're there, - with very little coming through those rear channels... But, - put on those Tubular Bells, and Sordidman runs from the room screaming....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
You probably have limited listening experiences to live classical performances or even live jazz. Otherwise you would think quite differently of multi-channel in either genre. Have you listened to SACD multi-channel in either classical or jazz, but especially the former. If so, what recordings?Also, I can't speak to hard rock, but I can say with authority that many soul concerts have had "surround" type feel since at least the 70's. The performers may be in front of you but the music (speakers projecting the music) is everywhere. Also, it is not unusual for performers these days to play their instruments literally into the audiences down the aisle. Until down the presentation of their music on CDs and LPs has been severly handicapped by two channel limitations.
In modern concerts musicians just don't sit like bumps on logs like in days past. The show is *very* dynamic. The days of Kate Smith, Patti Page, and the McGuire Sisters are long gone. But even their music would have benefited immensely from SACD multi-channel.
I recommend that you listen to some multi-channel SACD on a correctly configured system before you paint it with the broad and inaccurate brush of "Home Theater" and "Quad".
Robert C. Lang
Although I have to admit that I sometimes jerk the knees and fire that shotgun from the hip....I'm talking about the barrier of entry, and the confusion inherent with the average consumer and the value of the product, and what the industry is doing to promote the system.
If all we have is Tubular Bells, and the Blue Man Group, - we have a novelty, - that not a long term, viable, representation either of what it's like to go to a "real" show, - or make a product that is not annoying over the long term: hence the "Quad" analogy.
Even at CES, - that utterly wretched Von Schwiekert/Dartzeel fiasco probably set (what I, and many would agree with me), MC back considerably, - perhaps years? All my friends walked away from that crap shaking their heads in amazement at how unbelievably bad it was.
Now from Kal Rubinson's many great articles, I hear that there are more and more wonderful MC classical recordings coming out all of the time, - with much more realistic information coming from ALL of the channels, but again, classical music is dying, and can't be relied upon to support MC. Bjork, Goldfrapp, Train, Counting Crows, Dixie Cihicks, Simple Plan, Stones, even Herbie Hancock and Sting need to save MC.
I still stand by the fact that given the expensive point of entry to high end multichannel and the antithetical GOALS of HT and Quad: multichannel audio should've presented itself as 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I agree that the paucity of rock releases and/or the lack of good quality rock releases has been damaging to multi-channel in general and to SACD as a format. I am not a rock fan at all, but I have always recognized its value to SACD and have staunchly rooted for more rock releases because of its importance.Using the same reasoning I believe every SACD advocate should, at a minimum, root for the success of multi-channel, whether they like it or not, because for most music listeners multi-channel is the only real difference between SACD and CD. Even in this forum more and more of us say we can't hear the difference. And the chorus has been growing louder. (I can't comment on that because I have so few new generation CDs). Even in rabid anti-SACD forums such as Rec. Audio High-End when you introduce multi-channel into the equation in the middle of a SACD bashing thread it can take the wind out of the bashing. Because even they recognize that multi-channel *is* a clear difference between CD and SACD where few (most will say no) other differences otherwise exist. In other words, multi-channel, like it or not, is the last and only hope for SACD. Fortunately, the manufactures understand that which is probably why it is almost impossible to buy a new recording that does not have a multi-channel program on it.
I agree that classical music is a shrinking pond. But I am glad to see that the retreat has seemly halted judging by ticket sales at the symphonies around the country and that record sales (according to "Bill Board") have actually shown a slight increase. But you are correct there is no way that classical music devotees can carry a format like it ushered in CD 23 years ago. (Although, classical music has carried SACD on its back for the last few years). And actually that too bad with respects to multi-channel because that's where it can really close the gap between a sound system and live music.
I also agree that the costs for high-end entry into multi-channel are over the top. This can cause a catch 22 because of the high cost and difficulty in setting up a system even close to correctly. For practical reasons many listeners will just piggy back their SACD multi-channel with their Home Theater systems and then have a poor experience which they then report back to the group.
Regarding the suggestion of 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener, that might be appealing visually, but if the science behind 5.1 is any where close to being good science (and it may be flawed) then either the semi-circle would not work very well or (and this I believe is more likely) the channels in the semi circle arrangement would have to be mixed in such a way to "sound" like 5.1 is today.
Robert C. Lang
In that, "Using the same reasoning I believe every SACD advocate should, at a minimum, root for the success of multi-channel, whether they like it or not, because for most music listeners multi-channel is the only real difference between SACD and CD. Even in this forum more and more of us say we can't hear the difference. And the chorus has been growing louder."That is a very good point. And, one which really has got me thinking.
Kal and others have also pointed to specific, great, MC recordings that really have a way of putting you there that other 2 channel systems simply do not. It is unfortunate that I haven't yet had the opportunity to really experience this first hand, and should. It's also too bad, that given my current feelings about high dollar audio, and the level of musical satisfaction it brings, my personal entry point into MC doesn't even get close to justifying the cost. As, I'm actually thinking more and more about downgrading my current system to something even cheaper.
Anyway.. thanks for those thoughtful comments...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I'll let you know I started out in 2001 listening to SACD utilizing the Sony 9000ES SACD/DVD player. It was a vast upgrade from the NAD CD player and the current DVD player I was utilizing at the time so I was killing two birds with the stone.I then found myself becoming more the music listener fanatic than a HT movie watcher. I sold the Sony 9000ES, picked up the Sony XA777ES and bought a cheaper DVD player.
All well and good but my CD collection far outweighed my SACD collection. The sound of redbook on the XA777Es was quite good and also I my became quite interested in classical music which lead me to the 1000s of CD recordings available for that genre.
I basically abandoned SACD for about a year or so I would say except perhaps for some of the LS recordings. I started listening to some of those in three channel and by picking up some recommendations here for other classical SACDs which had a good multichannel track. It has rekindled the fever I first had with the SACD format. I'll add I only have a Denon AVR3803 which goes for about a grand. I'm not looking to downgrade my system whatsoever. Rather recently, I upgraded all my speakers. Next, it will be the amp to hear that much more from these wonderful MCH classical recordings!!
I would always (well, any number of times) plead with Teresa that it served no useful purpose to incessantly launch silly civil wars between two channel and multi-channel listeners, especially since they (two-channel and multi-channel) are not mutually exclusive within the format and, in fact, are tied to each other for existence.Now if I believe that some vinyl guys are attempting to hijack *this* forum I'll be all over them like white on rice, my support for vinyl not withstanding.
Robert C. Lang
HowdyI'll argue a little with you about "multichannel audio should've presented itself as 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener..."
There's more than one kind of music and I value the contributions of music/ambiance from the rear on many recordings whether it's a simple acoustic recording or a high tech extravaganza. Without the rears much of the feeling of being there is gone.
On the other hand four five or six channels (with at least two in the front, two in the back...) already taxes the delivery media tho I'm sure that will change, but not quickly.
Three speakers in the front gets most of what you'd get from six at 1/2 the cost of everything.
-Ted
"Three speakers in the front gets most of what you'd get from six at 1/2 the cost of everything*.One can slowly build the system by concentrating on the three speakers in the front to start. I strongly believe it would be a much better experience in 3 channel than two which I witness in the LS recordings where applicable. I however would not want to be without the rears with lots of these MCH SACD recordings. Without the rears as you stated, much of the feeling of being there is gone! I totally agree.
the DV-50, DV-50s and the new SZ-1 and UZ-1 Ted - none of which convert to PCM. (Of course, a moot point when your Esoteric is out for repair.)
HowdyI don't know their product names, but I was under the impression that their killer 5 box solution converted to PCM.
-Ted
Ted, you can't remember the future - some of this stuff is brand new.
HowdyI guess I'm confused about your post.
Am I understanding you that Esoteric is headed towards purer DSD for DSD, e.g. the AD1955 DAC? Or are you saying they were already there in the unit I heard?
-Ted
I think that with the newest boxes and ES-Link enabled it is pure DSD.
HowdyYep, the newest ones use DSD dacs and a sane clock interconnect topology.
I just don't know if what I heard were the newest ones and I misunderstood (or was misinformed) or if I heard older ones.
Oh, well, at least things are going the right direction IMO :)
-Ted
I used three Onkyo 301P preamps from the early-mid 90's, picked up on ebay for about $130 each. One remote control, and I have a ganged six channel preamp with a direct bypass mode for my SACD and DVD-A players (as well as many other things). Works well, and sounds better than most HT receivers. You can also pick up used power amps if you have the space to set them up and vent them. Worked well for me.
Harry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
